Bye, bye to the collusion lie

Sums it up, really.

10 responses to “Bye, bye to the collusion lie

  1. David Fierstien

    ADAM SCHIFF: “Trump and his campaign welcomed and encouraged Russian interference?”
    MUELLER: “Yes.”
    SCHIFF: “And then Trump and his campaign lied about it to cover it up?”
    MUELLER: “Yes.”

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Why do you call it a lie? Most people who think deeply about these things call it a theory, to be proved or disproved. To use the word lie implies that you are somehow politically or emotionally invested in this issue beyond any useful definition of intellectual curiousity. Mueller relates that he was unable to find evidence in support of collusion, in the strict sense of the word. Mueller also admits that he dedicated far more resources to issues where he suspected a Federal crime may have been committed. Whereas conspiratorial acts may often constitute a crime, collusion is almost always a less grevious form of criminal cooperation. Finally we are depending for answers on the word of a man (and an orgnisation) that employed several key persons subsequently convicted of lying to a lawful investigation, the word of some of those people, and on a heavily redacted report, redacted on the orders of a notably partisan Justice Secretary. I don’t believe that we have anything approaching the complete picture yet. That picture, when completed, may prove collusion. Or it may not.

    Like

  3. Gerry, you seem to have taken the kool-aid too. Donald Trump loves people like you, as this sort of behavior has prevented any real struggle against his real policies. You guys are just helping him back into the White House next year with your attemtps to squeeze blood out of this stone.

    Like

  4. David Fierstien

    Gene Byrne says, “To use the word lie implies that you are somehow politically or emotionally invested in this issue beyond any useful definition of intellectual curiousity.”

    Response to that: Gene, that boat sailed a long time ago. This is the same man who, after I pointed out that regarding the illegal annexation of Crimea, the Russian Federation was in violation of the Black Sea Fleet Treaty (specifically paragraph 1, Article 6, and paragraph 2, Article 8 – the texts had been presented) said, “I don’t think the minutia of such treaties are important in this discussion . .” https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2014/12/10/dirty-politics-over-mh17/#comment-65739

    Let me make that clear. We were discussing the illegal annexation of Crimea. I pointed out that the RF was in violation of international treaty. Ken had said, “I can’t for the life of me see how the RF was in violation of the Crimean bases treaty. Perhaps you could point me to the specific clauses.”

    After they had been presented, along with their locations within that treaty, true to form in his blanket defense of the Russian Federation at all cost, he disqualified those very clauses by calling them “minutia” and that it wasn’t important in a discussion about the illegal annexation.

    To which I pointed out the obvious (to any normal person), that the “minutia” of an international treaty IS the treaty.

    This is who you are dealing with, Gene. There is no intellectual curiosity here. There is only an aging political pundit whose mind is already made up, and who has gained some intellectual credibility with you because he found a cult of anti-fluoride nut-jobs, easily discredits them, and, by comparison, appears rational.

    Like

  5. David, you seem to ignore details that do not confirm your bias – minutia or not.

    In our discussion of the return of Crimea to Russia, you acknowledged that the Citizens of Crimea got to vote on a constitution, independence from Ukrain and their return to the Russian Federation. But you objected to the Crimeans not being offered a choice of sticking with the previous constitution which existed prior to the coup of February 2014. It did not seem to worry you that that specific constitution had already been disbanded by the coup leaders who had just come to power in Kiev. Not only could it have not been voted on by Crimeans for that reason, the rest of Ukraine never got a say in its disbandment.

    You cannot understand what happened in Crimea and its return to Russia if you do not understand what happened in Kiev with the violent overthrow of a democratically elected government – no matter how much the usurpation of power by nationalists and neofascists fits your ideological viewpoint.

    Like

  6. David Fierstien

    Please learn to document.

    And thank you for confirming my comment.

    Like

  7. David, what do you want documented. the fact of the February coup in Kiev right after the EU proposed a solution and got the agreement of the president and opposition?

    The fact that one of the first acts of the post coup Rada was to abandon the most recent constitutions and revert to a previous one?

    The fact that at no time was the population consulted in this?

    What do you have problems with?

    There is no need to be nasty. It’s possible to have a rational discussion on this issue. What do you question or want documented.

    Like

  8. David Fierstien

    Ken, you are making my point for me about your bias.

    Let’s be clear. The Russian Federation illegally annexed territory from another internationally recognized sovereign nation. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262 affirmed the General Assembly’s commitment to the territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders and underscored the invalidity of the 2014 Crimean referendum.

    International law is determined by the international community. By a vote of 100 to 11, the international community overwhelmingly condemned the illegal Crimean annexation. Again, a vote of 100 to 11 in condemnation of the RF for it’s actions.

    But please, by all means, continue you blanket defense of any and all actions taken by President Putin and the RF. It makes it easier for me to out you for what you are.

    Ken: “There is no need to be nasty. It’s possible to have a rational discussion on this issue.”

    Response: In the United States, it is well known that the President sets the tone for the conversation. If you can’t handle the discourse, stay the fuck out of U.S. politics. And no, it’s not possible to have a rational discussion with someone whose mind was rusted shut decades ago.

    Like

  9. David, your understanding of international legality is laughable. the UNGA does not make international law. The US and Israel would be in a disastrous position of it did.

    And your position is inhumane because it completely ignores the wishes of the Crimean people which have often been determined and presented since Ukraine became independent. Only since the disastrous coup in Kiev have the Crimean people been able to receive satisfaction by actually declaring independence and voting in a referendum to return to Russia. Even the most extreme ant-Russian publication are, these days, acknowledging that the Crimeans are happy with that choice and it has led to improvements in their well being and ability to use their own national languages in education, etc.

    Also, David – Grow up. To excuse your bad behaviour and insulting language here by the fact that US politics is so childish just demonstrates childishness on your part. As I said, resorting to that sort of behaviour here does nothing for your argument at all.

    Like

  10. David Fierstien

    Thank you for continuing to make my argument for me.

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s